THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX
By: Dr. Charles Ormsby
For years they have lived among us. We thought they were one of us. Certainly we share a remarkably similar physiology. To paraphrase Shakespeare’s Shylock, “If you prick them, do they not bleed? If you tickle them, do they not laugh? If you poison them, do they not die?”
They do not inhabit a different geography, although we often wish they did. They seem to thrive by living among us; in fact, their very survival apparently hinges on our presence. Clearly, the geography they inhabit is not their defining characteristic.
On the contrary, homo occupaduses are distinguished from homo sapiens based on their unique mode of survival. Instead of using their brains to produce the goods and services needed for survival, they use their admittedly limited cranial capacities to avoid work while extracting the goods and services they need from productive homo sapiens.
Clearly this qualifies them as a subspecies based on an ecological subdivision. If their distinctive means of survival and their utter dependence on the productivity of the remainder of their species doesn’t qualify them for subspecies status, what does?
How was this breakthrough accomplished? It might never have occurred if the subspecies homo occupaduses had not made a colossal mistake. The survival strategy of this peculiar subspecies depends on blending in and not being identified by their host as parasites. But, fortunately for the productive among us, a particularly bold subgroup has recently coalesced to demand we grant them a greater bounty.
It is logical for parasites to be attracted to hosts that possess the greatest and most accessible store of the loot they seek. One would expect homo occupaduses to be attracted to large, wealthy cities since they host the most productive homo sapiens … the capitalists. Of all the world’s cities, what city and section would attract them the most? New York City and Wall Street, naturally.
There you have it, the Wall Street occupiers: Homo Occupaduses.
Now that we have discovered and isolated this despicable subspecies, it is possible to study them in greater detail.
After several weeks of close scrutiny and drawing on observations made over decades prior to the actual identification of this subspecies, thirteen secondary characteristics, beyond the unifying parasitic means of survival, have been identified.
These thirteen characteristics are: compulsive dishonesty, a pack mentality, a preference for employing force instead of persuasion, arrogance, a sense of entitlement, slothfulness, short term thinking, a hatred of private property, an ignorance of history, hatred of the U.S. and Israel, low IQ, the substitution of screaming for rational discourse, and body odor.
One occasionally encounters a member of homo occupaduses that does not share all thirteen of these characteristics, but such encounters are rare – like finding a three-legged elephant.
If you think you have found an exception, it is wise to investigate further. For example, you might encounter a seemingly intelligent member of homo occupaduses but find out later that they were routinely using a teleprompter.
Which brings us to the obvious policy question: What should we do with them?
Clearly they should not be extended the right to vote, especially on issues of importance like taxation. Who in their right mind would let mosquitoes vote on how much blood should be extracted to ensure that they are satiated? Should they be allowed to live among us? Obviously they are a threat to the well being of all productive homo sapiens. Maybe only those with a willing and productive homo sapiens sponsor should be allowed to remain. Without a consenting sponsor, one that can produce the needed goods and services for a homo occupaduses survival, surely their survival will of necessity be based on the theft of goods and services from the unwilling. How, in good conscience, can that be allowed?
The other reason that a willing homo sapiens sponsor should be required is that such a sponsor can insist on a modicum of bodily hygiene; not to mention insisting that the dependent homo occupaduses perform some chores around the house while acquiring a useful skill. Who knows, it may be possible to actually convert a few borderline occupaduses to productive members of society (a highly speculative conjecture for which there is little reliable evidence, but further research may be warranted).
While we are sorting out these policy questions, I advise all homo sapiens to avoid letting the occupaduses know we have identified them. If they find out that we are on to them, they will meld back into polite society and resume the covert tactics which have served them well for so many generations.
Finally, if you know any homo occupaduses, I suggest you buy them a one-way ticket to Greece where they will feel right at home with millions of other homo occupaduses.